Incidence and Cross-Continents Differences in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Outcomes Among Patients With Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are conflicting data on the frequency and variability of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) outcomes in patients with cirrhosis. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on the incidence of post-ERCP adverse events in cirrhotic patients and to examine the differences across continents. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify studies reporting adverse events after ERCP in patients with cirrhosis from conception to September 30, 2022. The random effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and confidence intervals (CIs). A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q-statistic (I 2 ). Results: Twenty-one studies that included 2,576 cirrhotic patients and 3,729 individual ERCPs were analyzed. The pooled overall rate of adverse events after ERCP in patients with cirrhosis was 16.98% (95% CI: 13.06-21.29%, P < 0.001, I 2 = 86.55%). ERCPs performed in Asia had the highest ERCP adverse events with an overall complication rate of 19.90%, while the lowest overall adverse events were in North America at 13.04%. The pooled post-ERCP bleeding, pancreatitis, cholangitis and perforation were 5.10% (95% CI: 3.33-7.19%, P < 0.001, I 2 = 76.79%), 3.21% (95% CI: 2.20-5.36%, P = 0.03, I 2 = 42.25%), 3.02% (95% CI: 1.19-5.52%, P < 0.001, I 2 = 87.11%), and 0.12% (95% CI: 0.00 - 0.45, P = 0.26, I 2 = 15.76%), respectively. The pooled post-ERCP mortality rate was 0.22% (95% CI: 0.00-0.85%, P = 0.01, I 2 = 51.86%). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that the overall complication rates after ERCP, bleeding, pancreatitis, and cholangitis are high in patients with cirrhosis. Because cirrhotic patients are more likely to have post-ERCP complications, with significant cross-continent variations, the risks and benefits of ERCP in this patient population should be carefully considered. Gastroenterol Res. 2023;16(2):105-117 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1610
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".